The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic.
♥ShriSanamKumar♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article reads more like a promotional piece. If the necessary changes where made, I'd change my vote to keep.
Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA|talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Revise. The article refers to a popular website entity with a large world-wide following, covers relevant topics which include publications of said entity. It goes without saying that the article must be revised to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone but to go from that to a full-on deletion would be unwise. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Revised History section to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone. Any other revisions would be more than welcomed. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced with the sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All I see are passing mentions or articles written by the author of the site. I do not see any secondary coverage and we specifically require that. I would be glad to change by !vote, but after extensive searching I was unable to find any. Please not that the Forbes and HuffingtonPost sources are contributor articles (not staff article) and hence count was
WP:SPS - not good enough for notability. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk) 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable web site; sources are not there for GNG or CORP.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I concur with the comments above, nothing actually convincing and there's nothing to suggest the current sources aren't PR or republished PR and triviality, because they in fact are. A keep vote acknowledging the concerns is enough to suggest this is in fact deleted, regardless of any notability, and that's clear enough.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic.
♥ShriSanamKumar♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article reads more like a promotional piece. If the necessary changes where made, I'd change my vote to keep.
Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA|talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Revise. The article refers to a popular website entity with a large world-wide following, covers relevant topics which include publications of said entity. It goes without saying that the article must be revised to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone but to go from that to a full-on deletion would be unwise. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Revised History section to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone. Any other revisions would be more than welcomed. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced with the sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All I see are passing mentions or articles written by the author of the site. I do not see any secondary coverage and we specifically require that. I would be glad to change by !vote, but after extensive searching I was unable to find any. Please not that the Forbes and HuffingtonPost sources are contributor articles (not staff article) and hence count was
WP:SPS - not good enough for notability. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk) 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable web site; sources are not there for GNG or CORP.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I concur with the comments above, nothing actually convincing and there's nothing to suggest the current sources aren't PR or republished PR and triviality, because they in fact are. A keep vote acknowledging the concerns is enough to suggest this is in fact deleted, regardless of any notability, and that's clear enough.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.